• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Foundation of a New Climate Paradigm

If we refuse to address the negative human effects on our environment the earth will become unlivable for the current population as the oceans rise, the weather becomes too unpredictably violent for life and agriculture and the atmosphere heats up.

What we have been doing is not enough if we expect to be able to live at our current standard of living. Either we can change or the earth changes and one-quarter to one third of the population and 1/3 of the species are wiped out by disease, flooding and famine and environmental upheaval.
Can you cite a peer reviewed scientific paper that supports your idea, that Earth will become unlivable, unless we change our ways?
What does the Science tell us?
The observed data shows that increases in CO2 levels can cause some warming.
A doubling of the CO2 level would force warming of ~ 1.1C, and that first doubling would take about 180 years.
A second doubling, may be possible, but only if we dug up and burned every bit of coal we can find,
AND we do not improve emissions through technology.
I am by no means saying that Humans do not have a negative effect on the environment, we do!
Human effects on the climate is not the same thing, and much more difficult to measure.
Whatever is happening to the climate and for whatever reason, it is having the opposite effect than you claim.
Your claim,
"the weather becomes too unpredictably violent for life and agriculture"
The data!
World Population Growth - Our World in Data
The world population increased from 1 billion in 1800 to 7.7 billion today
We don't need to double world food production by 2050 – here's why
and the global food supply is increasing.
Your first two points are factually incorrect! There are not negative effects, as we are still increasing both population and food supply.
Your second paragraph is almost as wrong as your first,
"What we have been doing is not enough if we expect to be able to live at our current standard of living. Either we can change or the earth changes and one-quarter to one third of the population and 1/3 of the species are wiped out by disease, flooding and famine and environmental upheaval."
our current standard of living is based on easy access to energy. Currently that easy access comes from fossil fuels, but that is unsustainable,
and would not even scale up to the current population.
It is the global warming alarmist, who would demand that we lower our standards of living,
be forced to live in small apartments near public transportation. This may work for people who want that lifestyle,
but not so much for people who want to raise their families outside of the inner city.
So on your second paragraph point,
Can you cite a scientific paper that supports your assessment of the future, and on what criteria is it based?
 
That doesn't change the fact that he is still a climate denier.He is trained as a chemist. He is not a climatologist with a peer reviewed body of work.

What do you fear happening if climate change is addressed?

I fear the feckless waste of resources to address a non-existent problem, reducing the resources available to address real needs.
 
Research is never feckless.

Maybe in this case it is:

90126c0373ab58619b7021dfb4e85467.jpg
 
Global-temps-rise-by-1.72C-from-1850-to-2015-El-Borie-2020.jpg

Image Source: El-Borie et al., 2020

Interestingly, this same paper claims Total Solar Irradiance variations alone are responsible for 0.5°C of the warming from 1950 to 2016, with the decline in cloud cover corresponding to galactic cosmic ray intensities since the early 1980s.
Galactic-Cosmic-Rays-Clouds-and-Climate-El-Borie-2020.jpg

Image Source: El-Borie et al., 2020

So without the added/changed/adjusted temperatures during the last few years, it could be said that changes in TSI are mostly responsible for recent warming.

[h=2]The IPCC Claimed Earth Warmed 0.6°C From 1861-2014. Now It’s Claimed Earth Warmed 1.72°C From 1850-2015[/h]
 
Global-temps-rise-by-1.72C-from-1850-to-2015-El-Borie-2020.jpg

Image Source: El-Borie et al., 2020

Interestingly, this same paper claims Total Solar Irradiance variations alone are responsible for 0.5°C of the warming from 1950 to 2016, with the decline in cloud cover corresponding to galactic cosmic ray intensities since the early 1980s.
Galactic-Cosmic-Rays-Clouds-and-Climate-El-Borie-2020.jpg

Image Source: El-Borie et al., 2020

So without the added/changed/adjusted temperatures during the last few years, it could be said that changes in TSI are mostly responsible for recent warming.

[h=2]The IPCC Claimed Earth Warmed 0.6°C From 1861-2014. Now It’s Claimed Earth Warmed 1.72°C From 1850-2015[/h]
One has to wonder from which hat they pulled the 1.72°C from!
The decade smoothed Harcrut4 has an 1850 number of -0.274°C, and a 2019 temp of 0.700°C, a difference of .974°C.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs...ries/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg_smooth.txt
I guess they needed to increase the warming to account for the 0.5°C from TSI changes!
 
One has to wonder from which hat they pulled the 1.72°C from!
The decade smoothed Harcrut4 has an 1850 number of -0.274°C, and a 2019 temp of 0.700°C, a difference of .974°C.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs...ries/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg_smooth.txt
I guess they needed to increase the warming to account for the 0.5°C from TSI changes!

I think this paper tries to square the circle, conceding the obvious significant solar role while not (yet) repudiating previous exclusive AGW attribution. It's a kind of halfway house.
 
I think this paper tries to square the circle, conceding the obvious significant solar role while not (yet) repudiating previous exclusive AGW attribution. It's a kind of halfway house.
I think the contortions they will need to assume, to keep their concept in tact,
would make a Yoga master proud!
 
The new paradigm takes hold.

[h=2]New Study: The Post-Pause Global Warming After 2013 Was Not Caused By CO2, But Shortwave Radiation Forcing[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 17. August 2020
Share this...


[h=4]Echoing the determination of NASA scientists, a new study suggests the natural variability in cloud cover allowing more solar radiation to be absorbed by the Earth’s oceans drove the 2014-2020 global warming.[/h]NASA scientists (Loeb et al., 2018) used satellite data to assess the 2014-2017 warming was driven by a +0.83 W/m² shortwave forcing due to the downward trend in cloud cover.
Cloud-SW-forcing-drove-2014-to-2017-warming-Loeb-2018.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Loeb et al., 2018[/h]
 
Scientists: It’s ‘Impossible’ To Measure Critical Cloud Processes…Observations 1/50th As Accurate As They Must Be

By Kenneth Richard on 20. August 2020
Share this...


Clouds dominate as the driver of changes in the Earth’s radiation budget and climate. A comprehensive new analysis suggests we’re so uncertain about cloud processes and how they affect climate we can’t even quantify our uncertainty. . . .

Cloud physics challenges in climate modeling
But it gets worse. Morrison et al. (2020) acknowledge cloud microphysics – processes affecting precipitation and evaporation – are a “critical part of the Earth’s weather and climate”. But they further assess:
t is impossible to simulate every cloud particle.”
“There are critical gaps in knowledge of the microphysical processes that act on particles.”
“[K]nowledge gaps in cloud processes both introduce important uncertainties into models that translate into uncertainty in weather forecasts and climate simuations, including climate change assessments.”
t has been difficult or even impossible to constrain many individual process rates in schemes directly from observations.”
There is currently no method to obtain airborne observations of in-cloud supersaturation with respect to liquid, which requires much more accurate methods for measuring temperature (to within 0.01°C) than possible using conventional airborne temperature sensors (typically 0.5°C).”
“[This] calls into question not only the realism of these schemes at their core but whether or not in principle they are even verifiable.”
In other words, we are seriously overestimating the extent to which we can model or even understand the factors affecting weather and climate due to critical observational constraints and knowledge gaps in cloud processes.
Cloud-physics-uncertainty-critical-knowledge-gaps-Morrison-2020.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Morrison et al., 2020[/h]
 
Scientists: It’s ‘Impossible’ To Measure Critical Cloud Processes…Observations 1/50th As Accurate As They Must Be

By Kenneth Richard on 20. August 2020
Share this...


Clouds dominate as the driver of changes in the Earth’s radiation budget and climate. A comprehensive new analysis suggests we’re so uncertain about cloud processes and how they affect climate we can’t even quantify our uncertainty. . . .

Cloud physics challenges in climate modeling
But it gets worse. Morrison et al. (2020) acknowledge cloud microphysics – processes affecting precipitation and evaporation – are a “critical part of the Earth’s weather and climate”. But they further assess:
t is impossible to simulate every cloud particle.”
“There are critical gaps in knowledge of the microphysical processes that act on particles.”
“[K]nowledge gaps in cloud processes both introduce important uncertainties into models that translate into uncertainty in weather forecasts and climate simuations, including climate change assessments.”
t has been difficult or even impossible to constrain many individual process rates in schemes directly from observations.”
There is currently no method to obtain airborne observations of in-cloud supersaturation with respect to liquid, which requires much more accurate methods for measuring temperature (to within 0.01°C) than possible using conventional airborne temperature sensors (typically 0.5°C).”
“[This] calls into question not only the realism of these schemes at their core but whether or not in principle they are even verifiable.”
In other words, we are seriously overestimating the extent to which we can model or even understand the factors affecting weather and climate due to critical observational constraints and knowledge gaps in cloud processes.
Cloud-physics-uncertainty-critical-knowledge-gaps-Morrison-2020.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Morrison et al., 2020[/h]


The simple fact that we have only known that thunderstorms emit gamma rays for a few years, speaks to our limited knowledge
of what goes on in clouds.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02181-8
 
Warming Before Global Warming Was Not Globally Coherent Warming

Posted on 21 Aug 20 by JAIME JESSOP 7 Comments
Do you remember, back in the good old days, just over a year ago (6 months BC – Before Covid) when the mainstream alarmist media was breathlessly reporting two studies which showed that modern global warming was truly global and unprecedented in magnitude in the last 2000 years? I doubt you could have missed it; … Continue reading

". . . Now, there’s plenty of peer-reviewed studies which, in contrast to Neukom last year, suggest that the LIA/MWP/RWP were in fact global climate events, that they were temporally coherent and that, moreover, they were of comparable magnitude to recent global warming. So let’s ‘follow the inconvenient science’ and see where it leads us. If we do that, it leads us to speculate (with justification, backed up by data and research) that modern global warming, far from being unique, far from being ‘unprecedented and unparalleled’ as claimed by Neukom and others a year ago, is just one of a number of abrupt Holocene climate fluctuations mediated via internal cycles operating in the North Atlantic region, connected perhaps to AMOC and maybe also initiated or reinforced by solar variability. The North Atlantic region then is seen to drive global climate change, which is exactly what Tsonis was saying in 2017. This is at least as viable an explanation for a large part or even the majority of late 20th century rapid warming as is GHG emissions. But of course, climate science is not normal science, it’s post normal science, hence alternate, evidence-based explanations for modern global warming must be either ignored or censored."

 
Last edited:
[FONT=&quot]Solar[/FONT]
[h=1]Solar Plasma Temperature is plunging – should we worry?[/h][FONT=&quot]The solar plasma temperature has plunged to a new low for the instrument record. Coincidentally or not, the temperature of the southern hemisphere has also plunged over the last couple of weeks. When do we start worrying?
[/FONT]
 
Stochastic effects in H2SO4-H2O cluster growth

Köhn, Christoph ; Enghoff, Martin Bødker ; Svensmark, Henrik
in: Aerosol Science and Technology

Type: Journal article (Peer reviewed)
Status: Accepted/In press | Year: 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2020.1755012

Abstract

The nucleation of sulfuric acid-water clusters plays a significant role in the formation of aerosols. Based on a recently developed particle Monte Carlo (MC) Code, we analyze how the growth of sulfuric acid-water clusters is influenced by stochastic fluctuations. We here consider samples of H2SO4-H2O clusters at T = 200 K with a relative humidity of 50%, with particle concentrations between 105 and 107 cm–3 in volumes between 10–6 and 10–2 cm3. We present the temporal evolution of the formation rate and of the size distribution as well as growth rates and the onset time of the nucleation above a given cluster size with and without constant production of new monomers. Clear evidence is revealed by the MC code that fluctuations result in a faster growth rate of the smallest clusters compared to deterministic continuum models that do not contain the stochastic effects. The faster growth of small clusters in turn influences the growth of larger clusters. Depending on the volume size, the onset time for clusters larger than 0.85 nm varies between 1000 s and 20,000 s for
n=105n=105​
cm–3 and between 10 s and 100 s for
n=107n=107​
cm–3.

 

Interview series of Will Happer

Professor Happer discusses why the impact of CO2 is small on the earth surface temperature. The effect of CO2 saturates as the amount of CO2 increases even to the 2X amount, such that the change in temperature is small. It is not likely to see the impact of 2x CO2 above 1 to 1.5 C.
Continue reading →
 

Solar Cycle 25 has officially begun

Solar Cycle 25 is officially underway. NASA and NOAA made the announcement during a media teleconference earlier today. According to an international panel of experts, sunspot counts hit rock bottom in Dec. 2019, and have been slowly increasing since. NASA and NOAA made the announcement during a media teleconference earlier today. According to an international panel of…
Continue reading →
 
Plenty Of Physics Flaws Accumulate Into A Huge GHE Hoax: The Dark Secret Behind Surface Emissivity
By P Gosselin on 27. September 2020

Share this...
Share on FacebookTweet about this on Twitter
By Erich Schaffer
Magic is all about illusion, and so is “climate science”. Nothing about the GHE is as it seems and so far the “critical” side has failed to see through it. No longer!
Examining the key question of surface emissivity, usually downplayed as a non-issue, reveals highly significant insights relativizing the common narrative and revealing another profound flaw in the theory. Eventually this will lead to a totally disruptive Eureka moment. . . .
 
Hiatus in Global Warming
Study: Global Warming Hiatus (aka “The Pause”) Was Real
From the GWPF and the better late than never department: (the paper was published in late 2019 but seems pretty solid, using Oxygen18 isotope analysis) – Anthony A new analysis of global air temperature by researchers from Tongji University in Shanghai has cast light on the much debated recent hiatus in global temperature. Writing in…
 

New Solar Orbiter data reveals the sun at its quietest
Three of the Solar Orbiter spacecraft’s instruments, including Imperial’s magnetometer, have released their first data. The European Space Agency’s Solar Orbiter spacecraft launched in February 2020 on its mission to study to Sun and it began collecting science data in June. Now, three of its ten instruments have released their first tranche of data, revealing the state…
Continue reading →
 
Climate News
Nearby supernova may have helped to initiate ice ages?
Discovery of a nearby supernova 2.5 million years ago boosting cosmic rays may lend credence to Svensmark’s cosmic rays modulate clouds on Earth theory. From the TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH (TUM) via Eurekalert Stellar explosion in Earth’s proximity When the brightness of the star Betelgeuse dropped dramatically a few months ago, some observers suspected an…
 
Back
Top Bottom